Idle thought

On Hell's sports radio station, the morning show will be hosted¹ by Michael Felger and John Meterperel².



¹ - I'm sure that they'd take this as a compliment if they saw it. It isn't.
² - If you don't know who these people are, count your blessings.

The OUTRAGE! of the day - Manny's rehab

I didn't spend much time listening to the radio yesterday, but I heard enough to know that the latest occasion for high moral dudgeon on the part of sports fans, writers and broadcasters is the Manny Ramirez "rehab" assignment in Albuquerque. People are OUTRAGED! mainly, I think, because they enjoy being OUTRAGED! and so will grasp for any possible reason. And for many, the fact that Manny Ramirez is getting some at-bats for a Dodgers minor league affiliate before the end of his 50-game Major League Baseball suspension qualifies as an OUTRAGE!

Rob Neyer, with whom I agree on many topics, thinks that "allowing suspended major leaguers to play in the minors is a farce, plain and simple." He echoes Tracy Ringolsby, who asked "why should Ramirez be given the privilege of getting to play in minor league games before he has served his full suspension?" He feels so strongly about it that he calls it a "farce" twice.

But why is it a farce? I've heard a couple of different arguments, and none of them is self-evident. Nor is any one of them indisputable. I don't even think that any of them are particularly strong.

• "The minor leagues had a drug policy long before the big leagues." (Ringolsby) So what? He isn't a minor leaguer, and he wasn't suspended under the minor league drug policy. The minor league drug policy is aimed at minor league players, and is irrelevant to this discussion.



• "It isn't like Ramirez was injured. He was suspended for his own actions. So he should have to pay the full price." (Ringolsby). Right. And what is the full price? As determined by Major League Baseball, and collectively bargained with the players' association, the "full price" is that he has to miss, and forfeit his paycheck for, 50 of his team's games. His team is the LA Dodgers. When he returns next week, he will, in fact, have missed 50 Dodgers games, and 50/162s of his salary. That sounds an awful lot like "full price" to me.



• "Teams should be held accountable for the transgressions of their players. If teams suffer enough they might be more vigilant in dealing with potential violations." (Ringolsby) I'm sorry, but this is just silly. The Dodgers will have played 50 games, 30.8% of the schedule, without their highest paid and most valuable player. If that's not enough to make them "vigilant," would 58 games be enough? 67 games? Would they have been less vigilant if the suspension were only 40 games? Where's the line?



• (This is a paraphrase, not a direct quote, but it accurately represents what was said:) "It's not fair to some AAA player, who has to go down to make room on the Albuquerque roster for Manny to rehab." There may have been stupider comments made yesterday - in fact, I'd bet on it - but I didn't hear them. This gem was from WEEI midday host Dale Arnold, who apparently didn't realize that that would also have been the case if he'd had to wait ten more days.

Major League Baseball has rules for drug use. Manny Ramirez violated them, which brought on a pre-determined punishment. Manny has served, and is continuing to serve, that punishment, as pre-agreed upon by all interested parties. This outcry would have been a lot more effective the first time it actually happened, when JC Romero pitched in minor league game(s) while still suspended from the Phillies earlier this year, because "Major League Baseball rules allow him to pitch in the minors for 16 days before the suspension ends." Where were Tracy Ringolsby and Rob Neyer and Dale Arnold and all of the outraged WEEI callers then? I heard them, and it sounded a lot like ... [crickets] ...

Here's the bottom line: if people are offended by the current policy, then what they are actually saying is that the 50 game suspension is not enough - it should be longer. It's fine to take that position, but be intellectually honest and take it. Admit that that's your position. Say, "50 games without pay isn't long enough - it should be 60. Or 80. Or public flogging." Or whatever, but say it. Don't try to argue that Manny is or the Dodgers are somehow getting away with something because he's going to try to be ready to play at the end of his 50 game suspension. This isn't something that was done to accommodate Manny and it isn't a prize or reward or bonus (ask the typical Major League player how much he'd enjoy forfeiting 6% of his salary for the privilege of going back to the minors). It is part of the established policy, which recognizes that with that much time off, a Major League player needs to see some game action to get ready to return. The policy is 50 games, and is designed to be, in fact, 50 games. Not 50 official and 8 unofficial.

Again, if you think that it is an insufficient penalty for either the player or the team, then make the case that it's an insufficient penalty. But don't pretend that somehow Manny and/or the Dodgers aren't paying the full price for his actions, because he is and they are. The rules were agreed upon beforehand, and they're being followed.


UPDATE: David Pinto disagrees. He thinks that there's no problem with being outraged over a rule (with which I agree) or with this rule in particular (with which I strongly disagree).

...we should have been outraged when the rule was first written. That doesn’t mean, however, that now that we are aware of the rule that we shouldn’t be outraged. A suspension to me means you don’t play ball for 50 days. Major League players can afford to hire batting practice pitchers or batting practice batter to help keep them sharp while they’re not on the team.

Wouldn't taking batting practice qualify as "play[ing] ball?" Manny (and JC Romero before him, and whoever comes next) weren't suspended from "play[ing] ball" - they were suspended from playing Major League Baseball. I can understand being outraged about a rule, I just don't understand the source of the outrage over this one. Unless, as I said, you think that the 50 games isn't long enough.

But the fact that he's getting minor league at-bats, and Romero got minor league inning(s) before the Major League suspension was officially over, well, I don't see any "farce" or cause for outrage there. Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't just disagree with the outrage - I cannot even understand the reason for it. As near as I can tell, people seem to think that the rehab makes the punishment only a nominal 50 games as opposed to a real 50 games, that this makes the MLB claim of a 50 game suspension a lie. I just don't see it.

Note to Michael Felger

When a Major League team loses a game 4-3, a starting pitcher who gave up four runs in six innings is not the biggest problem.

Patriots Monday

• Going to the theatre and going to a sporting event are different experiences. You go to a theater, frequently, and see a work that you already know. You aren't there to learn how it ends, but to appreciate the performances, to see what the artist on stage will come up with on that particular event. You go to a sporting event driven by the thrill of competition - two groups put their best out on the field to determine who walks off the field victorious.
  
  The 2007 Patriots experience has been more of a theatrical performance more often than not. There's only been one game where there was sporting competition in the 4th quarter. The rest of the time, you're watching to see what the artists are going to do. And how they're going to do it. The game last night was decided before the first quarter was open, but you couldn't turn away. The Patriots are like a how-to demonstration right now. "This is how you pass block. This is how you run a passing play. This is how you approach third down. This is how you step up in the pocket. This is how you beat coverage." It is artistry.
  
  It has been unbelievable to watch.
  
  UPDATE: "This isn't an average NFL team blowing out another NFL team. This is one of the great teams of all time, doing work, and it's a pleasure to watch."
  - Michael Holley, WEEI
  
  Couldn't agree more.



• And it should be savored and enjoyed. We're seeing something that has never been seen before, and is unlikely to be seen again. I certainly don't expect to see it again in my lifetime. These are the good old days.



• This may be the first time this has ever been said about a 56-10 game: It was not as close as the final score indicated.
  
  Seriously.
  
  The Patriots scored their last offensive touchdown with over 14 minutes remaining. Brady came out of the game. Their last two offensive drives, both of the drives that Brady played in the second half, took 12 and half minutes, and 22 plays in covering 158 yards. They were killing the clock on the first drive of the second half. There is no way to look at that game and not think that the Patriots could easily have scored 70 had they chosen to.
  
  And Buffalo's lone touchdown came as a result of a fluke/breakdown/scramble third-down conversion, followed by a badly underthrown ball against perfect coverage. A good pass is picked off, but the pass to Parrish was short, and Hobbs wasn't able to react quickly enough to it.
  
  The final differential was 46 - it could have been worse. Much worse.



• Pittsburgh and Indianapolis, the teams with the second and third best point differentials in the NFL, have outscored their opposition by a combined 243 points (124 for the Steelers, 119 for the Colts). The Patriots have outscored theirs by 254.



• The 1985 Chicago Bears, considered by many to be the greatest team of the Super Bowl era, outscored their opposition by 258 points over 16 games. The Patriots, again, have outscored theirs by 254 over 10.



• The NFL record for points in a season is 556, set by the 1998 Minnesota Vikings. The Patriots are currently on a pace to score 658 points and break it by 102, over 18%.
  
  Read that again.
  
  The NFL's been in business for a long time. When the Vikings set that record, they broke the old record, held by the 1983 Redskins, by 15, a little less than 1 point per game. The Patriots are outscoring the 1998 Vikings by over 6 points per game.



• Record watch:
  
  
  

  Patriot (and Brady) Record Chase

  	TD passes	Points (team)	TDs (team)	PPG (team)	Rating	Comp %
  Record	49	556	70	38.8	121.10	70.55
  Current	38	411	54	41.1	133.97	73.96
  Need	12	146	17	211
  Average	2	24.33	2.83	35.17

  
  
  49 TD passes - Peyton Manning, 2004
  556 points - 1998 Minnesota Vikings
  70 Touchdowns - 1984 Miami Dolphins
  38.8 PPG - 1950 Rams
  121.1 passer rating - Peyton Manning, 2004
  70.55 % completion - Ken Anderson, 1982
  
  Some of those (TD passes, points, touchdowns) seem inevitable at this point. The team has to continue performing, but something dramatic and drastic would have have to happen for those records not to fall. Assuming that Brady throws another 150-250 passes, he needs to complete 64%-67% of them to take the completion percentage record. The passer rating is a little bit tougher to project, but he's got some room to perform worse than he has so far and still take it.



• Serious question - what kind of a spread would be required to get you to bet on the Eagles next Sunday night?

Kuechenberg on WEEI

A couple of interesting comments this morning from former Dolphin lineback Bob Kuechenberg on WEEI. I didn't have a recorder going, so can't provide a transcript right now, but hopefully they'll post the audio later.

- On the Patriots "spygate" issue, he thinks (as I do) that it was vastly overblown. "Why should it be illegal?"

- There's been a portrayal of the 1972 Dolphins as desperately protective of their "legacy."

Here they come again, the NFL's grumpy old men, tarnishing their legend a little more each time they grumble about another team's attempt to fashion a similar piece of history. The 1972 Miami Dolphins will forever be remembered as the first NFL team to achieve an undefeated season, but for some Dolphins it has always seemed that being the first is not enough. They desperately want to remain the "only."

And there's also been backlash against that portrayal. Former TE Jim Mandich says that they are not "pathetic losers down here clinking champagne glasses and desperately clinging to a record set 35 years ago."

Well, Kuechenberg said (and I'll have to get the exact wording later) that he's rooting as hard as he can for the Patriots to lose.

2007 World Series - Game 1

Is there a better way for the home team to start a game? 1-2-3 on strikeouts in the top of the 1st, lead-off home run in the bottom of the 1st.

• After Boston beat Cleveland in game 1 of the ALCS, the talk in Boston was of the inevitability of the Red Sox winning the series. After Cleveland beat Boston in game 4 to take a 3-1 series lead, the same people wanted Terry Francona fired. This morning, it is once again all sunshine and lollipops, the Rockies are psychologically damage, the series will be a sweep featuring four blowouts, the Rockies can't play with the Red Sox, yadda, yadda, yadda. All hogwash, in other words. The Red Sox are up 1-0. Period.


• Regardless of Chris Berman's repeated comments about "the bye week" hurting the Rockies, it is impossible to know whether last night's performance was a result of rust, nerves, Boston's performance, or just a bad night. Or some combination of those factors. It certainly seems possible that all of those played into it. Some of the Rockies mentioned rust and game speed, though the manager won't let them have it as an excuse.


• By the numbers:
  
  • Three Boston pitchers threw 119 pitches. Six Rockies pitchers threw 197.
  
  
  • 13-1 - largest margin of victory in game 1 in World Series history. If I'm not mistaken, the teams tied for 2nd now, with an 11-run game 1 margin, both lost the series.
  
  
  • 8 doubles - ties World Series Record
  
  
  • 9 extra-base hits - ties World Series record
  
  
  • 13 runs scored - record for runs in game 1 of the World Series
  
  
  • 3rd consecutive post-season game scoring 10 runs or more - post-season record
  
  
  • 2-out rally with 9 consecutive batters reaching base - first time in World Series history
  
  
  • As part of that 5th inning rally, the Red Sox drew three consecutive bases-loaded walks. No one has said that that's a record, not that I've seen anyway, but I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't be.


• In the first five innings, Josh Beckett threw 79 pitches. Four Rockies pitchers combined to throw 156.


• "If Ubaldo goes more than six, it will be an upset of Buster Douglas proportions."
  

  - Gerry Callahan, as I'm writing

  
  He's gone more than 6 innings 7 times in 17 starts. He's gone 6 even in 3 more. Even understanding that the Red Sox have both a better and more patient offense than most of the teams he's done it against, it would be an upset on the order of flipping heads twice in a row. Callahan's obviously not a rational unbiased analyst, but that's the level of analysis that is to be expected from WEEI.


• Tracy Ringolsby, Rocky Mountain News: "It was so frightening," one press box wag announced, "that Stephen King left."
  Woody Paige, Denver Post: "Novelist Stephen King left after the fifth inning, apparently never having seen anything that scary."


• In my preview, I reference the Baseball Prospectus Playoff Odds. I was surprised by the fact that the Sox were such a big underdog in that model, and had sent an email to Clay Davenport asking what I was missing. Well, I apparently wasn't the only one who questioned him. He made some changes when the pitching rotations were finally announced, and the odds changed significantly. Boston doesn't hit lefties well, neither does Colorado. Replacing Morales with Cook and Wakefield with Lester both change the odds in Boston's favor. From 56-44 Colorado, it went to 59-41 Boston.
  
  He then went through further exercise, doing game by game calculations based on adjustments to hitter and pitcher handedness, with the following results:
  
  
  
  

  Odds of winning series

  Team	Series Result	Odds
  Boston	4-0	12.7%
  	4-1	20.9%
  	4-2	23.4%
  	4-3	16.6%
  Boston Wins (total)		73.6%
  Colorado	4-3	10.3%
  	4-2	7.5%
  	4-1	6.1%
  	4-0	2.5%
  Colorado Wins (total)		26.4%

  
  
  So the first pass of the generic playoff odds simulation suggested that the Rockies were big favorites. The adjusted version suggested that the Red Sox were huge favorites. Today's update isn't up yet, but obviously, the odds of Colorado sweeping are gone and the odds of Colorado winning at all are down.


• All of which is interesting, but, to reiterate an earlier point, the Red Sox are up 1-0. Period.

The Red Sox win the pennant

Odds and ends and thoughts on the ALCS...

• I saw some whining from Cleveland fans about lucky breaks. They were legitimate. The Red Sox, in games 6 and 7, had a bunch of balls that fell in the right place, several infield singles. Of course, they went up 3-1 in the series by virtue of an awful lot of that kind of luck. Look at, to point out one example, the ball that Nixon hit that scored the winning run in game 2. A high pop-up that was just beyond the 2nd baseman, and not hit well enough to reach the center fielder. Look at the double that Sizemore hit to enable the Indians to tie the score in the first inning of game 5. And those weren't the only ones. Everything they hit for three games found a hole. When that dried up, so did the Cleveland offense.



• Apparently the umpires got the call right on the Manny ball in game 5. Which makes that the stupidest ground rule that I've ever seen. The ball was clearly over the wall - it had to hit an inch further on the top to be a HR?



• Cleveland has another legitimate gripe, from last night's game - Kenny Lofton was safe at 2nd. If that call goes the right way, Cleveland ties it in the 5th and it's a very different game.



• One of the things that David Pinto's pre-ALCS analysis (ALCS: Strikeouts are the key to this series) focused on was the strikeout rates of the Indians hitters and Red Sox pitchers, and the number of balls that would not be in play because of that. According to SI, "the Indians struck out more times (63) than a team ever had in an LCS." That makes a difference. Cleveland had a lot of well-placed base hits, but too many times never got the ball in play.



• I spent a day and a half preceding game 6 thinking that the absolute ideal beginning of that game would be JD Drew hitting a 2-out grand slam in the first to give the Red Sox a 4-0 lead. I certainly wasn't expecting it, but that struck me as about the most productive thing that could happen in that first inning. It did. And I may have been right. That game never felt competitive after that swing.



• There was only one game in the ALCS that was decided by fewer than 4 runs. The margins of victory were 7, 7, 2, 4, 6, 10 and 9. But the 9 run game and one of the sevens were actually very competitive. Game 2 was tied through 10 and then the Indians scored 7 in the 11th. Game 7 was a one-run game through 6 1/2 that wasn't tied in the 5th because of an umpiring mistake, and wasn't tied in the top of the 7th because of a coaching/baserunning mistake. Both got out of hand very late. (Actually, that could be said for game 5 as well, though after Boston scored in the third, it never felt as if the Indians were going to score against Beckett.)



• Last Wednesday, there was a hue and cry in the Boston media about who's fault it was. There were calls for Francona's head because a) he brought in Gagne on Saturday, b) he didn't drop Pedroia out of the leadoff spot, c) he didn't play Ellsbury instead of Drew, d) he didn't play Ellsbury instead of Crisp, e) he didn't pitch Beckett on three days rest on Tuesday night, f) he didn't pull Wakefield soon enough, g) he let Wakefield stay too long, h) etc., etc., etc. I addressed some of this at the time, but I wanted to touch on it again, to make a couple of points.
  
  
  1. Terry Francona (un-affectionately known in some circles as "Francoma", which should give you some idea of the intellectual level of the discussion) managed games 5-7, in which the Red Sox outscored the Indians 30-5, exactly the same way that he managed games 2-4, in which the Red Sox were outscored 24-11. The manager can't "make things happen." The players can. All the manager can do is make sure the right players are on the field at the right times, and Francona's been very good at it, even when it hasn't worked.
  
  
  2. If seven games between two teams tells you nothing about the relative quality of the teams, which I believe to be the case, what does three tell you? Nothing. Zip, zero, nada. But the Boston media can't, or won't, understand that, so we end up with Glenn Ordway previewing his "Big Show" on WEEI Wednesday afternoon by saying, "I think we might have to come to the realization - Cleveland's a better team." Maybe they are, but certainly 3 games wouldn't establish that. Based on the entire season, I don't think it's true, but the last week doesn't change my opinion a whit.

A rich source of awful logic

One of the places that tends to be rich in logical fallacies is the sports world. I don't know if anyone at WEEI knows what post hoc ergo propter hoc means, but that's what they're spending their time doing the past couple of days. The entire focus is how the play-offs will determine the rightness or wrongness of the September approach.

I've got news for you, guys. They may play badly leading into the play-offs and get swept out. That will prove nothing about whether resting players was the right approach. There's just far too much timing and luck involved in baseball for 3-10 games to mean anything. The fact that Boston just lost three in a row to Toronto does not mean that Toronto's a better team than Boston. If Boston coasts into the play-offs as the Wild Card, and loses in the first round, that doesn't mean that coasting in was a mistake. If they play the next week as if they were play-off games and hold off the Yankees to win the division, and then lose in the first round, that doesn't mean that playing all out was a mistake. They'll win in the playoffs, or they'll lose, and their record in September will have NOTHING to do with it.

Lottery dreams shattered

In 1996-1997, the Boston Celtics were awful. They went into the NBA's draft lottery with their own first round pick and Dallas', with the best odds of getting the number one pick, which everyone knew would be Tim Duncan. The worst case for Boston in that lottery was picking 3rd and 6th.

They picked 3rd and 6th.

In 2006-2007, the Celtics were awful. A young team, their best player, Paul Pierce, missed 35 games, and the Celtics finished with the 2nd-worst record in the NBA, with 2 potential franchise players in the draft. The worst case for Boston would be the 5th pick.

They'll be picking 5th.

Whatever luck this team had left when Len Bias died, and it hasn't been back.



That said, there may be time for discussion about the NBA draft lottery procedure. There may be a legitimate complaint that the current system fails to accomplish the actual purpose of a draft, which is that the worst teams get the first crack at the best players, for purposes of competitive balance. But this morning isn't the time for that discussion, which was taking place during my brief listen to WEEI. There will come a time for that discussion, but this morning, it's just whining, and extremely unappealing. The Celtics will be picking 5th. There will be a very good NBA player, possibly a great NBA player, who will be picked 5th or lower. The Celtics job is to find that player.

Monday Pythagorean - 5/21

3-1 against one of the best teams in the AL. 2-1 against one of the best teams in the NL. During a week that featured two rain outs, two double-headers and two starts by minor leaguers because of the Beckett injury. That's another very good week.

• There's a debate raging in the Boston media (OK, among the nimrod WEEI hosts) about whether the division race is over yet. Of course it's not. Historical examples of teams coming from that far back are just not as rare as we'd like them to be. Everyone remembers 1978. The Red Sox made up a 9 game deficit in 3 weeks in 1988 (passing 5 teams in the process). Just 3 years ago, 2004, the Yankees had a 10 1/2 game lead in the East on August 14 and saw it cut to 2 1/2 three weeks later on September 4. They held on, but everyone thought it was over in early August, and no one thought it was over in early September.



• Does that mean that I don't think that Boston will win the east? No, it doesn't. Are the Red Sox an excellent bet to win the AL East right now? They sure are. But what if Schilling and Matsuzaka join Beckett on the DL next week? It's never over until it's over (ask the 2004 Yankees about that) and this isn't over, and won't be for a while. The Yankees have got too much talent to continue to flounder this way.



• Let me clarify that last statement. The Yankees have got too much talent if everyone plays the way they've played in the past. Is this the year that Damon, Giambi and Abreu all get old? Is this the year that Mariano isn't Mariano anymore? Was Cano a fluke - have teams figured something out about how to deal with him? None of those are unreasonable questions. If Boston outscores NY, as they've done thus far, the Red Sox win the division easily, going away. The Yankees figured to be a dominant offensive team - if they're not, all bets are off. If they are, they're competitive, and win 90+.



• Even if the Yankees win 90+, the Red Sox are, right now, a good bet to win 100+. They've played at a 113-win pace thus far (and it's a legitimate 113-win pace, not a fluky, lucky 113-win pace) and they just need to go 70-49, a 95-win pace, the rest of the way to reach 100. I thought that they were better than a 95 win team before the season started, but that's all that they've got to do to reach 100. I think that the Yankees will win a lot of games, but I don't think that they'll reach 100.



• Boston is currently on a pace to score 875 runs and allow 588. Those would be outstanding totals.



• There's been some talk about "what will it look like when Manny starts to hit!" To temper that a little bit, let me suggest that Mike Lowell cannot sustain his current levels. Cora's over his head. Varitek won't maintain a .377 OBP, though it wouldn't surprise me if his SLG finished up slightly higher than his current .415. They can expect more from Manny and Crisp and Lugo, I think. On the whole, the offense has been pretty close to what I expect it to be. I expected around 900 runs, and run-scoring is down across the board. I don't expect a lot more than what we've seen so far.

AL Pythagorean Projection Report - 5/21/2007

						ProjectedActual
	R/G	(rank)	RA/G	(rank)	Pythagorean	(rank)	W	L	W	L	Luck
Boston	5.4	(4)	3.63	(2)	0.674	(1)	29	14	30	13	1
Oakland	4.53	(7)	3.6	(1)	0.604	(2)	26	17	22	21	-4
Los Angeles	4.56	(6)	3.69	(3)	0.595	(3)	27	18	27	18	0
Cleveland	5.56	(1)	4.76	(8)	0.571	(4)	23	18	26	15	3
Detroit	5.51	(2)	4.77	(10)	0.566	(5)	24	19	27	16	3
New York	5.4	(3)	4.76	(9)	0.558	(6)	23	19	19	23	-4
Minnesota	4.49	(9)	4.35	(4)	0.514	(7)	22	21	20	23	-2
Toronto	4.53	(7)	4.7	(7)	0.484	(8)	21	22	19	24	-2
Baltimore	4.27	(12)	4.57	(6)	0.469	(9)	21	23	20	24	-1
Chicago	4	(14)	4.43	(5)	0.454	(10)	18	22	21	19	3
Seattle	4.44	(11)	5.03	(11)	0.443	(11)	17	22	19	20	2
Texas	4.93	(5)	5.59	(13)	0.443	(12)	19	25	17	27	-2
Kansas City	4.07	(13)	5.04	(12)	0.403	(13)	18	27	17	28	-1
Tampa Bay	4.49	(9)	5.98	(14)	0.372	(14)	16	27	18	25	2

Top 5 projections (using current winning %)

Boston	113	49
Cleveland	103	59
Detroit	102	60
Los Angeles	97	65
Chicago	85	77

Top 5 projections (starting with today's record, using Pythagorean winning %)

Boston	110	52
Los Angeles	97	65
Cleveland	95	67
Oakland	94	68
Detroit	94	68

Standings for the week

						ProjectedActual
	R/G	(rank)	RA/G	(rank)	Pythagorean	(rank)	W	L	W	L	Luck
Los Angeles	5.86	(2)	2.86	(2)	0.788	(1)	6	1	6	1	0
Cleveland	7.17	(1)	4.17	(7)	0.73	(2)	4	2	5	1	1
Toronto	4.67	(10)	2.83	(1)	0.714	(3)	4	2	4	2	0
Kansas City	5.14	(6)	3.71	(4)	0.645	(4)	5	2	5	2	0
Detroit	5.57	(4)	4.14	(6)	0.632	(5)	4	3	4	3	0
Oakland	4.71	(9)	3.71	(4)	0.607	(6)	4	3	3	4	-1
Boston	4.86	(7)	4.43	(9)	0.542	(7)	4	3	5	2	1
New York	4.5	(11)	4.17	(7)	0.535	(8)	3	3	2	4	-1
Texas	5.86	(2)	5.86	(13)	0.5	(9)	4	3	2	5	-2
Tampa Bay	5.33	(5)	6	(14)	0.446	(10)	3	3	3	3	0
Baltimore	2.67	(14)	3.17	(3)	0.422	(11)	3	3	2	4	-1
Chicago	4.83	(8)	5.83	(12)	0.415	(12)	2	4	3	3	1
Seattle	3.83	(13)	4.83	(10)	0.396	(13)	2	4	2	4	0
Minnesota	4.33	(12)	5.5	(11)	0.393	(14)	2	4	2	4	0

WEEI lies about Schilling

WEEI's The Big Show, primarily Glenn Ordway, hammered Curt Schilling yesterday. They hammered him for apologizing for his Barry Bonds comments, because WEEI is basically an all-steroids, Barry-Bonds-is-the-devil, all-the-time station right now. And they hammered on him for commenting that the 8:30 AM interview with Dennis and Callahan might not be the greatest format for him to be making inflammatory comments. All of which is fine, I suppose, if you're into that sort of thing. But they took a piece of his Tuesday appearance absolutely out of context, and validated the opinions of every athlete who ever hated the media.

Yesterday he mentioned the interview in his apology.

I’d love to tell you I was ambushed, misquoted, misinterpreted, something other than what it was, but I wasn’t. I’m thinking that waking up at 8:30 am to do the weekly interview we do with WEEI is probably not the greatest format and if you heard the interview it’s not hard to realize that I’m usually awake about 30-45 seconds before it begins.

During his Tuesday appearance, Schilling was asked about, and talked about, his blog, and how it enabled him to correct mis-impressions that press coverage created. In the process of doing so, he said:

This blog has allowed me to just about disappear from having to do anything other than my post-game media and this radio show, which is, this is absolute heaven for me.

Ordway played that clip, and hammered Schilling for inconsistency, basically saying that Schilling was talking about the radio appearance being heaven on Tuesday, and then deriding it on Wednesday. The problem is, that was clearly not what he did. Even in the clip that they played on the Big Show, it sounded like they were mis-representing it. If you listen to the whole thing, there's just no question whatsoever about it. He didn't say or imply that the radio show was heaven, but that the blog allowing him not to do any media was heaven. If you listen to the whole thing, there is no other interpretation to put on it.

I didn't listen long, and don't know whether anyone tried to set Ordway straight or not. I suspect not, and I suspect that even if someone had, it wouldn't have worked. But the Big Show is a noise machine, and they generated lots of it yesterday. A little bit goes a long, long way, but that was exceptionally dishonest yesterday afternoon, even for them...

(You can listen to Schilling's Tuesday appearance here. The relevant quote comes about 10:35 in. As I say, if you hear it in context, it really bears only one interpretation, and it isn't the one that Ordway used...)